AHIBARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. She has drawn out attention to the counter affidavit wherein the very first preliminary objection relating to territorial jurisdiction has been taken by the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was stationed in Assam from where he was locally discharged on 1. 6. 1996. It is also pointed out that various red ink entries on the basis of which he was ultimately discharged were awarded to him while he was posted at Rajasthan, Kargill, Punjab and Assam. There is force in this plea raised by the respondent as no cause of action or even part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the resident of Uttar Pradesh and merely because at the relevant time when the discharge order was passed he was posted in a Unit located at Nagaland, he should not be forced to go to Nagaland/gauhati High Court to file the petition. Even if that is accepted, in that event also the territorial jurisdiction would be of Allahabad High Court and not the Delhi High Court.

(3.) THE other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is discharged invoking the provisions of Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules as well as Policy Instructions dated 28. 12. 1988 and since these provisions were formulated by the authorities in Delhi, this Court will have the necessary jurisdiction. It is also contended that the entire Indian Army is directly under the administrative and authoritative control of the respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Ministry of Defence and Chief of Army Staff and offices of the respondents No. 1 and 2 are located in Delhi, this Court will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition on these grounds as well.